The exclamation mark was certainly a conscious choice - a conscious choice to mess with mykonian. Putting "Die. Scum. Die." on 3 lines was hardly more of a conscious choice than putting a period at the end of your average declarative sentence. My first post says what it means to say in the way it means to say it. That's all.
In post 22, Fishythefish wrote:At some point I'm going to accidentally vote for the wrong kitty here, so it's essential we get rid of one before LYLO.
That's okay, you can call me Frog~ Very few people actually call me anything Kitty-related.
As far as Panzer goes, I think he voted me because he thinks I'm sexy and not because he cares much about the case. I could be wrong, but I certainly am quite an attractive frog.
I actually did want a mod response to my deadline lynch rule question.
Mod
Spoiler:
In post 3, mykonian wrote:If there are multiple people with the most votes, the person who acquired them first gets lynched
Suppose the 9 players in this game are called A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I.
Let's say C gets voted by A and B.
After that happens, player A gets voted by players C and D.
Then players E and F vote player G.
So the votecount now looks like
[2]C - A, B
[2]A - C, D
[2]G - E, F
[3]Not Voting(G, H, I)
Let's say that B then unvotes C and votes A. Then D unvotes A and votes C. No other votes happen the entire day. Final votecount:
[2]C - A, D
[2]A - C, B
[2]G - E, F
[3]Not Voting(G, H, I)
To me, your deadline lynch rule could justify any of these 3 players being lynched. Player A was the first to acquire 2 votes. Player G was the first to acquire the two votes he now has. Player A was least recently below 2 votes.
chamber: The existence of alternative self-consistent thought processes for that action does not nullify the point, which is that your post seems off to me. That you are ducking the implied question of "why are you doing this?" with hypothetical reasons doesn't make me feel better about you.
KK: I like your posting so far, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I have a "strong" read on you - I don't believe I've played with you before, for one thing.
Something seems a little off with DRK's response to Fishy (insofar as DRK is voting for KittyMo and would seem to be in favor of getting rid of one of them), but I may be confirmation biasing myself. Ditto with caring so much about the deadline lynch rule, which should never be an issue if we are a good town.
The exclamation mark was certainly a conscious choice - a conscious choice to mess with mykonian. Putting "Die. Scum. Die." on 3 lines was hardly more of a conscious choice than putting a period at the end of your average declarative sentence. My first post says what it means to say in the way it means to say it. That's all.
Yeah, the exclamation mark mod-messing explanation I'm certainly happy with. Other one seems like something that would require a very concious choice, but there's nothing left to say on it.
Dislike mith's 29, it's stretchy as hell. DRK's reply to me is answering a joke (though that may be stretching the term) about Kittys with a joke about usernames and Panzer's reasons. His vote for Kitty couldn't matter less, since noone is really advocating "lynch a kitty". His deadline lynch questions are slightly unusual, but why scummy? Acknowledging you have confirmation bias is a wonderful thing, but I struggle to believe mith has it this early on, on this sort of wagon. Doesn't feel real.
UNVOTE: DRK VOTE: mith
@Katsuki: any thoughts that can't be expressed in vote form?
DRK: It's probably not productive for me to start off on a long rant about the pointlessness of "random" votes, so I will just say that if you are still voting for someone randomly on page 2 in the middle of non-random discussion, you're doing it wrong.
Who do you find scummy so far?
Fishy: I don't see DRK responding to a joke with a joke - I see DRK responding to a joke with a serious "call me something else", and then going on to make a separate point about Panzer (and then riff on the frog thing). Anyway, I concede that DRK probably wasn't thinking about that vote as a serious thing regardless of alignment.
On the deadline lynch thing, though, it just strikes me as the sort of thing scum asks about trying to look helpful, rather than the sort of thing town genuinely cares about (since, as I said, it shouldn't matter).
On the deadline lynch: ok. I can see where you are coming from. I disagree - I think it's a rather tired scumtell that probably never worked well - but it's not a particularly scummy point to make.
How about the confirmation bias? Do you really think you are suffering from that in any significant way on page 2? That is totally alien to me - and I, like you, think that making early game cases as serious as possible is useful and fun.
The possibility of confirmation bias likely slipped into my thought process after reading this early today (linked from a more recent lifehacker article). Poor choice of phrase anyway; it's not that I was worried I found that scummy only because I already found DRK scummy, it's that I'm aware I probably only noticed the (apparent) incongruity of that statement because it was DRK responding rather than someone else.
In post 34, mith wrote:DRK: It's probably not productive for me to start off on a long rant about the pointlessness of "random" votes, so I will just say that if you are still voting for someone randomly on page 2 in the middle of non-random discussion, you're doing it wrong.
Unvoting isn't something it generally occurs to me to do unless I have a vote to replace it. At what point did you think my vote on her became a serious vote and why did that not warrant a question when things like this did? Seems like a strange oversight to make on the guy you're voting.
HOWEVER, my vote right now will go to the lovely young lady who made this post:
In post 36, PJ. wrote:This interaction between fishy and mith is striking me as distancing.
Good guy katsuki on the trendy wagon.
DRK WAGON 2013
An interaction on page 2 between the two primary proponents of my wagon striking him as distancing, but not enough for him to consider taking his vote off me? More importantly, his vote on me is seemingly a serious one. I was under the impression he just wanted to vote me and took the page 1 votes on me as an opportunity to do so. The repeated cry of "DRK WAGON 2013" seems hella forced and awkward on a serious vote for which he didn't give reasoning.
In my one modded game, when I originally wrote my ruleset, my deadline lynch tiebreaker rule read as something along the lines of "First person to reach that number of votes will be lynched" (which sounds to me like it means the same thing mykonian's sounded like it meant). Before the game started, I realized that what I meant to say was actually "The player least recently below that number of votes will be lynched", the wording of which was the result of much more thought than it deserved and much more frustration over its inelegance than was anywhere near necessary. I agree that we've done something wrong if we need to know deadline lynch tiebreak rules; they're just something I'm interested in.
@Kitty: It makes me self-concious about my interactions with the player, and then I over-analyse what I should say (actually, this applies to all scum-scum links with alive players whose alignment I don't know). For example, I nearly changed my last post substantially because I was accused of distancing - I'm aware that it fits with distancing. It also gives me weird motivations to want mith not to be scum, because if he is I'm more likely to get lynched tomorrow. All in all, this hinders my scumhunting and stilts my interactions with the player I'm linked to - although probably not too much at all here, it being a really early and presumably weak link.
To be clear, none of that is saying that drawing links between alive players is wrong, or invalid scumhunting (though I do tend to think it's pretty useless before any flips). Just that I hate it.
The battlefield had been chosen for it's suitability for cavalry maneuvers. Khalid knew that if he wanted any chance at victory, he had to maximize the effect of his superior cavalry.
DRK: There was nothing to question until you made that comment. I default to the assumption that all votes are meaningful anyway - at the time, I was just thinking about where your vote was placed, not that it had originally been "random" and that you were still on it and therefore it had "become" serious. If I had been looking for a transition from random to serious, that was the first post you made after KittyMo started posting.
Anyway, I don't really have any reason to disbelieve that you tend to not unvote unless you have somewhere to go with it (and will again resist the urge to go on a Mafia theory rant about it).
The way the Panzer wagon formed is making me uncomfortable, despite what is basically an inversion of what chamber did earlier. I'd still like a straight answer from chamber re: his Panzer vote.
Katsuki: Are you always this lurkerish? Top two, reasons, go.
In post 29, mith wrote:KK: I like your posting so far, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I have a "strong" read on you - I don't believe I've played with you before, for one thing.
So you'll follow a gut scum read on minutia but not a gut town read on minutia?
In post 36, PJ. wrote:This interaction between fishy and mith is striking me as distancing.
So you think that they might both be scum, but you're championing the wagon that one of them started?
I'm willing to hammer yet (page 2 and all). But panzerjager needs to explain himself.
